Facial recognition software is already, or has the potential of revolutionizing law enforcement, security, access processes, loyalty programs, customer service, and many other commercial applications. 26 States are using it for law enforcement today, almost all of it was secretive until Snowden, prisons and jails are creating a biometric profile during processing, banks are entering your biometric ID when you are applying for a loan, hotels are doing it during check in, both Facebook and Google are implementing it, and a very large number of commercial businesses are using it for various applications. It"s cheap, it"s accurate, and it has a broad range of applications that make it cost effective to do. Current FR technology is such that you can be biometrically identified with almost one hundred percent accuracy in moments, all you need is a camera and software, once you are identified you can be found or tracked anywhere there"s a camera, hidden or otherwise, and you don"t even have to be told its happening. 3D facial recognition is more accurate than fingerprints today, anybody that wants to capture this biometric on you can do so without your approval as long as they have a camera on you when they know your identity, showing your license, using an ATM or credit card, and you can be identified and processed. Afterward any time you are in a public place with cameras, you can be tracked and monitored, law enforcement, banks, insurance companies, and a large number of other commercial institutions are doing this already, it"s proliferating rapidly.

I"m wondering what you think about this ethically and legally. Your facial biometrics are legally considered public information, such data capture by anybody is completely legal, very few laws limit what can be done with your biometric identification pnce you"re in the database. What do you think of the fact that you can be biometrically identified and fed into recognition databases without your approval or even knowledge? The constitution guarantees privacy, but does it guarantee anonymity? How are privacy and anonymity related, can you have one without the other?

"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater

At 9/2/2013 8:40:18 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:Where in the Constitution does it protect privacy?

It's implied in several places, most clearly the fourth amendment. In 1967 in Katz v. United States, the US Supreme Court held that fourth amendment protections extended to the privacy of individuals and physical locations. The first and fourteenth amendments have also been interpreted to provide a general right to privacy.

Also, how is my face private, if I am seen in public?

Did you read my post, it isn't, it's public.

The question was about whether your identity is private, not your face, the police can't follow you around or track you without cause, but current technology allows you to be tracked virtually everywhere you go. So your habits, hobbies, interests, where you go, what you do, where you shop, what you buy, the medical or legal facilities you go to, the company you keep, friends you visit, when you are home, when you are away, you don't consider any of that to be private information? You see no reason that anyone who wants can know those things about you and everyone you know?

"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater

The technology will ultimately lead to freedom.. look at the internet; it's the closest thing to anarchy that exists. Banning the technology to stop the maniacs who might use it is a 'shortcut' and doesn't actually fix anything. Technology is catapulting us into anarchy at a pretty amazing speed actually, and, I think, so fast that at this point people aren't going to be able to stop it anyway.

At 9/2/2013 10:04:00 AM, sdavio wrote:The technology will ultimately lead to freedom.. look at the internet; it's the closest thing to anarchy that exists. Banning the technology to stop the maniacs who might use it is a 'shortcut' and doesn't actually fix anything. Technology is catapulting us into anarchy at a pretty amazing speed actually, and, I think, so fast that at this point people aren't going to be able to stop it anyway.

I'm certainly not advocating banning the technology, 3D Facial Recognition Software is one of the things I sell for a living, I'm just curious how people feel about it. Snowden made us all aware just how much real time data there is and I didn't think many people were aware to what extent technology is being used to track, monitor, and profile us. It's all combined into big data with analytics, almost everything about you is profiled and analyzed, your life is an open book to those who want to know about it.

I don't really see that it translates into freedom though, I think it's all about control.

"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater

That said, however, the internet isn't catapulting us towards anarchy, but final order, I think. It's like you wouldn't say the human body is increasing entropy, but order arising from entropy. Whatever, though. Some people have their grudges against government. But the next technological revolution is gonna call for organization/reorganization, and that's gonna be down to us, dudes.

At 9/2/2013 3:05:13 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:There's good control and bad control. 'Freedom' is a word we made up.

What do you mean? Like, I think freedom has a pretty clear meaning.. Sure there's good and bad control, but the 'good control' only applies to others, as in nobody wants to themselves be controlled, and only when it's functioning to reduce the overall control.. ie, 'controlling' a murderer to not murder someone.

That said, however, the internet isn't catapulting us towards anarchy, but final order, I think. It's like you wouldn't say the human body is increasing entropy, but order arising from entropy. Whatever, though. Some people have their grudges against government. But the next technological revolution is gonna call for organization/reorganization, and that's gonna be down to us, dudes.

Anarchy does not necessarily mean chaos, but can mean 'no authority,' which seems clearly to be the direction which the internet and stuff is going.. Anybody who tries to control the internet out of it's natural direction (ie stop people from pirating, or whatever).. they just can't overpower it; the minority's desire to control is overpowered by the majority's desire for free will, and their increased means to exercise it.

Sure, we could call whatever new order arises within the new society formed from internet an 'authority,' similar to how we could call nature an authority, but in that sense we could also call 'reality' an authority. It is the human/human control which I think technology will reduce..

At 9/2/2013 10:04:00 AM, sdavio wrote:The technology will ultimately lead to freedom.. look at the internet; it's the closest thing to anarchy that exists. Banning the technology to stop the maniacs who might use it is a 'shortcut' and doesn't actually fix anything. Technology is catapulting us into anarchy at a pretty amazing speed actually, and, I think, so fast that at this point people aren't going to be able to stop it anyway.

I'm certainly not advocating banning the technology, 3D Facial Recognition Software is one of the things I sell for a living, I'm just curious how people feel about it. Snowden made us all aware just how much real time data there is and I didn't think many people were aware to what extent technology is being used to track, monitor, and profile us. It's all combined into big data with analytics, almost everything about you is profiled and analyzed, your life is an open book to those who want to know about it.

I don't really see that it translates into freedom though, I think it's all about control.

So basically you like the technology when used by the general population, but don't want it to get into the hands of government? That's why I think technology will make the problems of government much more apparent.. why do we trust the authority, who is supposed to be our protector, looking after us, less than literally everyone else? All technology could be used to increase freedom or increase control, IMO it is not the technology, and not even that technology getting into the wrong hands which is the problem.. but actually the fact that the 'wrong hands' exist.

At 9/2/2013 3:05:13 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:There's good control and bad control. 'Freedom' is a word we made up.

What do you mean? Like, I think freedom has a pretty clear meaning.. Sure there's good and bad control, but the 'good control' only applies to others, as in nobody wants to themselves be controlled, and only when it's functioning to reduce the overall control.. ie, 'controlling' a murderer to not murder someone.

Meh. Would there be any such word as 'freedom' if there never was enslavement, food shortages or anything like that; relative to other human beings, that is? I mean, sure, words are words, but then 'freedom' is one word with which ridiculous things are propounded IMO. Let's be honest here, is all I'm saying. There's no magical freedom, but control or the giving up of control.

That said, however, the internet isn't catapulting us towards anarchy, but final order, I think. It's like you wouldn't say the human body is increasing entropy, but order arising from entropy. Whatever, though. Some people have their grudges against government. But the next technological revolution is gonna call for organization/reorganization, and that's gonna be down to us, dudes.

Anarchy does not necessarily mean chaos, but can mean 'no authority,' which seems clearly to be the direction which the internet and stuff is going..

Sure it does, but I was actually trying out a bit of juxtaposition there. Freedom isn't anything - it can't be - but anarchy is. Anarchy is, to many people, a clearly formed idea of no government. It's an extension of the bullsh*t freedom thing, sure, but it gives it actual life as a nonsensical thing.

Anybody who tries to control the internet out of it's natural direction (ie stop people from pirating, or whatever).. they just can't overpower it; the minority's desire to control is overpowered by the majority's desire for free will, and their increased means to exercise it.

And there's no control here? And it won't grow more and more refined? It won't, say, soon resemble a cyber democracy?

Sure, we could call whatever new order arises within the new society formed from internet an 'authority,' similar to how we could call nature an authority, but in that sense we could also call 'reality' an authority. It is the human/human control which I think technology will reduce..

But it's us, man. How is it nature? We are our governments, just with less control over them. They exist through us.

I mean, I'm just sayin', people have really dumb ideas about government. People think they're gonna just say no to government and it'll go away and life continues as normal, no crime, no war, no suffering... but that's just incredibly stupid. Freedom? Ha! And so what's the plan for when conventional government goes down, guys?

I mean, is the internet and technology gonna prevent the construction of nuclear bombs? Nope, but it very well might bring society to its knees, nobody needing to work really and then what? We figure it out real easy and go play some board games? Haha, cool!

At 9/2/2013 10:04:00 AM, sdavio wrote:The technology will ultimately lead to freedom.. look at the internet; it's the closest thing to anarchy that exists. Banning the technology to stop the maniacs who might use it is a 'shortcut' and doesn't actually fix anything. Technology is catapulting us into anarchy at a pretty amazing speed actually, and, I think, so fast that at this point people aren't going to be able to stop it anyway.

I'm certainly not advocating banning the technology, 3D Facial Recognition Software is one of the things I sell for a living, I'm just curious how people feel about it. Snowden made us all aware just how much real time data there is and I didn't think many people were aware to what extent technology is being used to track, monitor, and profile us. It's all combined into big data with analytics, almost everything about you is profiled and analyzed, your life is an open book to those who want to know about it.

I don't really see that it translates into freedom though, I think it's all about control.

So basically you like the technology when used by the general population, but don't want it to get into the hands of government?

I don't know where you got that idea, the fifth army is my best customer, I sell much more to Federal, State and Local government than I do to commercial. The motivation and justification is always to protect the public, but the trend has been alarming, sometimes it seems to be more about protecting the state from the public, we have attack drones flying over America now, the ability to kill Americans without due process is in place, and we have the ability to spy on everyone without probable cause. "Riot control" plans, processes. and training exercises are extensive and they are very hard to distinguish from military preparations for a war against the US public. I admire and respect the fifth army, they are the branch of our armed forces stationed here to protect us on our own soil, but even many of the commanding elite express concern over the degree to which they are ordered to prepare for internal conflict. I do find that somewhat comforting, the fifth army is made up of our friends, neighbors, fathers, sons, and daughters, in the end, I don't think they would ever follow orders to deploy against their own friends, neighbors, fathers, sons, and daughters.

That's why I think technology will make the problems of government much more apparent.. why do we trust the authority, who is supposed to be our protector, looking after us, less than literally everyone else?

I certainly don't trust government less than literally everyone else. There are bad people out there, terrorists, pedophiles, drug lords, psychopaths, and others that I absolutely want the proper authorities to be able to identify, find where they are, and know what they are doing at all times. But as the saying goes, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", and I certainly think the control and lack of privacy being put in place in the name of protecting us from these people has the potential to be abused, and given the history of power, it certainly will be abused.

The question becomes where do you draw the line when determining who is an "enemy of the state", the thing about being in power is the powerful always want to stay in power and party politics is so polarized in this country that you could become an enemy of the state by simply expressing your freedom to hold different political views. We saw that kind of abuse of power under Nixon, the current administration has used the IRS to punish Tea Party supporters, they've been spying on associated press members that wrote articles they didn't like, they've put attack drones in the sky over the US and established legal justifications to kill Americans without due process. I just find it very disconcerting that so much of our "defense" capabilities are pointed directly at us, the general public that we are supposed to be protecting.

All technology could be used to increase freedom or increase control, IMO it is not the technology, and not even that technology getting into the wrong hands which is the problem.. but actually the fact that the 'wrong hands' exist.

And again, the question is how do you define "wrong hands", and where do you draw the line, commercially anyone who can afford it can buy and use it, and the motivation is money. I think we all know that greed and power are very corrupting influences.

"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater

At 9/3/2013 5:02:33 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:And there's no control here? And it won't grow more and more refined? It won't, say, soon resemble a cyber democracy?

But this cyber democracy could involve less violence, therefore less force; less authority. One small group of people will have less means to exercise force on the rest of the population.

Sure, we could call whatever new order arises within the new society formed from internet an 'authority,' similar to how we could call nature an authority, but in that sense we could also call 'reality' an authority. It is the human/human control which I think technology will reduce..

But it's us, man. How is it nature? We are our governments, just with less control over them. They exist through us.

I mean, I'm just sayin', people have really dumb ideas about government. People think they're gonna just say no to government and it'll go away and life continues as normal, no crime, no war, no suffering... but that's just incredibly stupid. Freedom? Ha! And so what's the plan for when conventional government goes down, guys?

The plan is that people will organize in a less violent way, with more individual choice and less control involved in the system. Of course this won't happen by just 'blowing up government' tomorrow though, it requires changing people's fundamental ways of thinking, and parenting, especially. Rather than all of the money being thrown in a big well and then distributed by a central organization, people have the 'freedom' to choose where their money goes, meaning more people making more of their own choices, without being controlled by others.

At 9/3/2013 5:13:28 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:I mean, is the internet and technology gonna prevent the construction of nuclear bombs? Nope, but it very well might bring society to its knees, nobody needing to work really and then what? We figure it out real easy and go play some board games? Haha, cool!

Well, will government prevent construction of nuclear bombs? Sure, they'll prevent others from constructing them, haha.. but while themselves constructing as many as they can. IMO in an anarchist society people would have great interest in preventing others from constructing a nuclear bomb, and technology may give them more means to do so.

At 9/3/2013 5:13:28 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:I mean, is the internet and technology gonna prevent the construction of nuclear bombs? Nope, but it very well might bring society to its knees, nobody needing to work really and then what? We figure it out real easy and go play some board games? Haha, cool!

Well, will government prevent construction of nuclear bombs? Sure, they'll prevent others from constructing them, haha.. but while themselves constructing as many as they can. IMO in an anarchist society people would have great interest in preventing others from constructing a nuclear bomb, and technology may give them more means to do so.

What is an anarchist society, though? You're just talking about majorly restructuring control there, dude. And I mean majorly. And then that's the thing: are you just talking about abolishing government?

Sorry sdavio, I was kinda busy there, but sure I guess I agree with you on all that pretty much. It's just government is going to grow, not contract. Anarchy just doesn't seem like the proper term here at all and furthermore to suggest nonsense.

At 9/3/2013 5:13:28 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:I mean, is the internet and technology gonna prevent the construction of nuclear bombs? Nope, but it very well might bring society to its knees, nobody needing to work really and then what? We figure it out real easy and go play some board games? Haha, cool!

Well, will government prevent construction of nuclear bombs? Sure, they'll prevent others from constructing them, haha.. but while themselves constructing as many as they can. IMO in an anarchist society people would have great interest in preventing others from constructing a nuclear bomb, and technology may give them more means to do so.

What is an anarchist society, though? You're just talking about majorly restructuring control there, dude. And I mean majorly. And then that's the thing: are you just talking about abolishing government?

Well it is controlled by each person's free will - I mean whether a company or person or whatever gets money is 'controlled' by whether others want to give it to them. You can still call that control but it's control without initiating violence.. as I said you can expand control to mean pretty much anything, any system is 'controlled' by whatever limits humans have from being God.. So yeah you could call any change of system a 'restructuring of control', but this is a restructuring to involve less violence and expanded free will.

Sorry sdavio, I was kinda busy there, but sure I guess I agree with you on all that pretty much. It's just government is going to grow, not contract. Anarchy just doesn't seem like the proper term here at all and furthermore to suggest nonsense.

In the short term it will grow, that is the nature of governments.. people with a taste of power aren't going to want to give it up, they'll only expand it. However it is possible that in the future we will organize in ways that do not involve taking people's money by force, and in the same way, once people experience freedom we won't go back to having a government imo.. like imagine going back to having slavery now, that would seem ridiculous. Maybe one day we'll look back on taxation in a similar way.

At 9/3/2013 6:07:25 AM, sdavio wrote:Anarchy really just means peace and equality.. the closer we get to those things the less government we'd need..

I'm not really sure about that... In anarchy, it would essentially become a mob rule, where the wants of the collective are prioritized over the individual. When the minority doesn't have a real voice, that isn't exactly conducive to "equality."

Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder

At 9/3/2013 6:07:25 AM, sdavio wrote:Anarchy really just means peace and equality.. the closer we get to those things the less government we'd need..

I'm not really sure about that... In anarchy, it would essentially become a mob rule, where the wants of the collective are prioritized over the individual. When the minority doesn't have a real voice, that isn't exactly conducive to "equality."

How would government supposedly change this? The only difference is that in anarchy the 'rule' in mob rule would be figurative rather than literal, violent rule.

At 9/3/2013 6:07:25 AM, sdavio wrote:Anarchy really just means peace and equality.. the closer we get to those things the less government we'd need..

I'm not really sure about that... In anarchy, it would essentially become a mob rule, where the wants of the collective are prioritized over the individual. When the minority doesn't have a real voice, that isn't exactly conducive to "equality."

How would government supposedly change this? The only difference is that in anarchy the 'rule' in mob rule would be figurative rather than literal, violent rule.

anarchy = power void = someone or something will step up to fill that void = not anarchy anymore

"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

At 9/3/2013 6:07:25 AM, sdavio wrote:Anarchy really just means peace and equality.. the closer we get to those things the less government we'd need..

I'm not really sure about that... In anarchy, it would essentially become a mob rule, where the wants of the collective are prioritized over the individual. When the minority doesn't have a real voice, that isn't exactly conducive to "equality."

How would government supposedly change this? The only difference is that in anarchy the 'rule' in mob rule would be figurative rather than literal, violent rule.

anarchy = power void = someone or something will step up to fill that void = not anarchy anymore

Unless people's parenting changes and they become more peaceful.. and unless people find ways to organize peacefully. It doesn't necessarily mean that people are powerless, only that the power is more evenly spread, and that people aren't initiating force. Remember, it requires the majority to agree to that entity's power, for them to succeed in 'stepping up,' and government has the benefit of being programmed into people's minds through public schools and stuff..

At 9/3/2013 6:07:25 AM, sdavio wrote:Anarchy really just means peace and equality.. the closer we get to those things the less government we'd need..

I'm not really sure about that... In anarchy, it would essentially become a mob rule, where the wants of the collective are prioritized over the individual. When the minority doesn't have a real voice, that isn't exactly conducive to "equality."

How would government supposedly change this? The only difference is that in anarchy the 'rule' in mob rule would be figurative rather than literal, violent rule.

anarchy = power void = someone or something will step up to fill that void = not anarchy anymore

Unless people's parenting changes and they become more peaceful.. and unless people find ways to organize peacefully. It doesn't necessarily mean that people are powerless, only that the power is more evenly spread, and that people aren't initiating force. Remember, it requires the majority to agree to that entity's power,

Really? I think another alternative is a lack of acting against those that step into power. Case in point, somalia, started out anarchist in the early 90's, soon enough them crime/drug lord gaiz stepped in, and though not many supported them effectively taking control, barely anyone took action to stop them.

For them to succeed in 'stepping up,' and government has the benefit of being programmed into people's minds through public schools and stuff..

Ehhh. I'd say "authority" as a concept, is hardwired into our psychology from the onset. Public school systems and government simply reinforce the natural tendencies we all have ingrained. Its really become a chicken or the egg, type thing imo. Which came first? The desire for authority and leadership, or the authority and leadership itself?

Either way, in my humble opinion, anarchy is a theorists dream, but a practical nightmare. Its always nice to "theorize" about the "ifs" and the "hows" and the "whys". I mean, I could theorize that if I pull the trigger of a gun in close vicinity to someones head, they would not be harmed, but when push comes to shove, and I actually pull that trigger, odds are pretty good that person is being buried six feet under.

"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

At 9/3/2013 6:07:25 AM, sdavio wrote:Anarchy really just means peace and equality.. the closer we get to those things the less government we'd need..

I'm not really sure about that... In anarchy, it would essentially become a mob rule, where the wants of the collective are prioritized over the individual. When the minority doesn't have a real voice, that isn't exactly conducive to "equality."

How would government supposedly change this? The only difference is that in anarchy the 'rule' in mob rule would be figurative rather than literal, violent rule.

anarchy = power void = someone or something will step up to fill that void = not anarchy anymore

Unless people's parenting changes and they become more peaceful.. and unless people find ways to organize peacefully. It doesn't necessarily mean that people are powerless, only that the power is more evenly spread, and that people aren't initiating force. Remember, it requires the majority to agree to that entity's power, for them to succeed in 'stepping up,' and government has the benefit of being programmed into people's minds through public schools and stuff..

It doesn't necessarily mean that the majority agree actually, just that they were at one time lax enough that whatever government took power. People aren't inherently as powerful as each other. This is just simple fact. And then what happens when conventional government goes out the window? Certain people have more money and power than others, and then what? This is the problem. Anarchists just want to topple the conventional, presidential government, but give no thought whatsoever as to what's left behind. And that's a whole lot of people, or individual corporations, who've just gained a whole lot of power over others that they never had before. Power isn't necessarily more evenly more spread. That's a complete non sequitur stemming from the whole magical freedom dumbness.

At 9/3/2013 8:47:31 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:It doesn't necessarily mean that the majority agree actually, just that they were at one time lax enough that whatever government took power. People aren't inherently as powerful as each other. This is just simple fact. And then what happens when conventional government goes out the window? Certain people have more money and power than others, and then what? This is the problem. Anarchists just want to topple the conventional, presidential government, but give no thought whatsoever as to what's left behind. And that's a whole lot of people, or individual corporations, who've just gained a whole lot of power over others that they never had before. Power isn't necessarily more evenly more spread. That's a complete non sequitur stemming from the whole magical freedom dumbness.

I guess we can agree here, in that the solution is to spread love & better parenting etc, not to 'rage against the machine' or whatever.. However it does seem like you're brushing aside the anti-state philosophy on the basis of what 'a lot of ___ say'.. I mean just because abolishing state is cutting off the effect rather than addressing the cause; that doesn't make the state any more moral.

At 9/3/2013 8:47:31 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:It doesn't necessarily mean that the majority agree actually, just that they were at one time lax enough that whatever government took power. People aren't inherently as powerful as each other. This is just simple fact. And then what happens when conventional government goes out the window? Certain people have more money and power than others, and then what? This is the problem. Anarchists just want to topple the conventional, presidential government, but give no thought whatsoever as to what's left behind. And that's a whole lot of people, or individual corporations, who've just gained a whole lot of power over others that they never had before. Power isn't necessarily more evenly more spread. That's a complete non sequitur stemming from the whole magical freedom dumbness.

I guess we can agree here, in that the solution is to spread love & better parenting etc, not to 'rage against the machine' or whatever.. However it does seem like you're brushing aside the anti-state philosophy on the basis of what 'a lot of ___ say'.. I mean just because abolishing state is cutting off the effect rather than addressing the cause; that doesn't make the state any more moral.

sdavio, it's just I can't really conceive of something not resembling a state ever existing. It's always gonna be a state. There's always gonna be something in place to keep down the bad and just letting that to the wind seems like a really dumb idea to me. And of course the people are just letting it to the wind as it is today, too, what with nobody having a clue what their governments are doing, etc., but all I'm saying is that it's time to get over the childishness, "anarchism" and what's current, both.

I actually think the real anti-government movement goes hand in hand with the anti-god movement to be honest, the former an extension of the latter, freedom the new prize. I mean, there's no sense to anarchy otherwise. Whatsoever.

It comes back to the point about technology - people didn't reject government before, but let's say something like bitcoins takes off.. will people be 'lax' when the violence in government is more obvious; when people are trying to exchange bitcoins and government comes in and tries to forcefully interfere in those exchanges? Or when they start trying to censor or regulate websites?